M/S Manish Industries Through Its Propritor Manish Malviya vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Held
The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable in light of the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal. The Court reasoned that the orders passed by the Proper Officer, as well as the orders dated 15.04.2024, are appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court found that the grounds raised by the petitioner in the writ petition are liable to be considered by the Appellate Authority. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts generally do not entertain writ petitions when an equally efficacious statutory remedy is available. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within 30 days from the date of the order, which shall be entertained on merits by the Appellate Authority.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Manish Industries, through its proprietor Manish Malviya, filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging orders dated 15.04.2024. During the pendency of this petition, a notice under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was issued to the petitioner, to which the petitioner replied and contested. Subsequently, final orders were passed by the Proper Officer. The Court noted that these final orders, as well as the previously challenged orders dated 15.04.2024, were appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court observed that the grounds raised in the writ petition were suitable for consideration by the Appellate Authority.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when a statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the CGST Act? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner had approached the High Court by way of a writ petition. Revenue's contention: The respondents, represented by the Government Advocate, argued that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, and the grounds raised in the petition are amenable to be considered by the Appellate Authority.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 15.04.2024 (Annexures P/9, P/10 and P/11).
During the pendency of this petition, a notice under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act) was issued to the petitioner, which he replied to and contested. Subsequently, the final orders have been passed by the Proper Officer. The said order is appealable.
The order dated 15.04.2024 (Annexures P/9, P/10 and P/11) was 1 WP-11730-2026 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:35750 (VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE (PRADEEP MITTAL) JUDGE also appealable. Therefore, the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal under S
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.